Greystar’s $24 Million Junk-Fee Settlement: What It Means for U.S. Renters and Landlords

What the Greystar settlement is about

Federal regulators recently announced a proposed settlement with Greystar, one of the largest apartment managers in the United States, resolving allegations that the company used deceptive advertising practices in how it marketed rents. The $24 million deal, which still requires court approval, stems from claims that Greystar advertised attractively low base rents while adding mandatory monthly charges that were not clearly disclosed up front.[ajc.com]

According to the complaint, many prospective tenants saw a headline rent online or in marketing materials, paid application or administrative fees, and only later discovered that the true monthly obligation was significantly higher once required add-ons were included.[ajc.com] These charges covered items such as pest control, trash collection, administrative costs for utility billing, and bundled media or smart-home packages. In some cases, regulators say the additional charges totaled hundreds of dollars per month over the advertised rent.[ajc.com]

Greystar manages more than 800,000 rental units nationwide, including large multifamily portfolios in metro areas such as Atlanta and throughout Georgia.[ajc.com] Because of that scale, the settlement is not just about one operator; it is a test case for how regulators expect large corporate landlords to present pricing across the U.S. rental market.

How junk fees show up in rental housing

The Greystar case highlights a broader issue: the growing role of fees in the rental business. In addition to base rent, many properties now charge for services that used to be bundled in or were less common, including valet trash, amenity access, parking, pest control, and technology packages. Some fees are optional or occasional; others function as mandatory, recurring components of the housing cost.

Regulators are particularly focused on instances where these mandatory fees are obscured until late in the leasing process or buried deep in lease documents.[ajc.com] When a listing promotes a base rent of, say, $1,800 but the actual payment is closer to $2,050 once required add-ons are included, consumers may have already sunk time and money into the application process before understanding the full price.

In its public statement about the settlement, Greystar noted that the agreement provides clarity on regulators’ expectations for how rental housing should be advertised.[ajc.com] The company emphasized that the settlement outlines a view that federal law requires displaying the total monthly leasing price—including base rent plus all mandatory fees—when marketing units for rent. That interpretation effectively defines junk fees not just by their existence, but by whether they are clearly rolled into the advertised price.

New expectations for transparent rent advertising

Under the settlement, Greystar must change how it advertises pricing by clearly presenting both the base rent and mandatory fees in a way that reflects the total monthly cost.[ajc.com] The agreement also prohibits certain deceptive practices around drip pricing—where extra charges are revealed only as consumers progress through the application or leasing flow. This aligns with a broader regulatory push against hidden or surprise fees in consumer markets.

For U.S. housing, the implications are significant. Greystar’s national scale means that updated advertising and leasing disclosures will show up across hundreds of thousands of units. Other large landlords and property managers are likely to review their own practices, particularly where they rely on fee revenue to boost net operating income. Property management software and online listing platforms may also need to adjust layouts and data fields to present a clear total monthly price rather than just a base rent.

In practical terms, the settlement signals that regulators expect rental advertising to resemble an “all-in” price for required monthly housing costs, even if optional services or usage-based utilities remain separate line items. That expectation could affect how concessions, move-in specials, and amenity charges are described and whether they are framed as optional or mandatory.

What this means for renters and small landlords

For renters, the most immediate impact should be greater transparency. Listings at large, corporate-managed properties may begin to show a single monthly number that reflects what tenants are truly obligated to pay each month, along with a breakdown of what is included. That makes it easier to compare one property to another and to budget accurately.

Renters can also use the principles highlighted in this case when screening any lease, regardless of landlord size. Key questions include: Which fees are truly optional? Which are required every month? Are any charges tied to third-party services that the tenant can choose to decline? If the total monthly obligation differs meaningfully from the advertised rent, that is a red flag that should be clarified before paying application fees or deposits.

For smaller landlords and local property managers, the settlement is both a caution and an opportunity. It underscores the legal risk of advertising one price while effectively charging another, even if the difference is created through add-on fees rather than rent itself. At the same time, being transparent about total monthly costs can be a competitive advantage. Clear, upfront pricing builds trust, reduces lease-up friction, and can limit disputes or chargebacks down the line.

Owners can start by inventorying every recurring fee on their properties and deciding which truly add value for residents. Nonessential or confusing fees may be better folded into rent or eliminated altogether. Any remaining mandatory charges should be clearly integrated into the advertised total monthly price, with simple explanations in marketing materials and lease documents.

Looking ahead, industry participants should expect continued scrutiny of rental junk fees, including both public enforcement and private litigation. Greystar has already been involved in separate class actions and state-level settlements related to rent-setting and fee practices, underscoring how quickly these issues can spread beyond a single case.[ajc.com] Landlords, investors, and property managers who get ahead of transparency expectations now will be better positioned as standards tighten across the U.S. rental market.